Truthless Tongue: The Lie-Loving Language of Leftism
I’m bilingual in English and English. That is, I’m bilingual in standard England and leftist English — I’ll call the latter Lynglish to blend the concepts of “leftist English” and “lying.” Standard English and Lynglish look the same but often mean very different or even entirely opposite things. And it’s a huge advantage for the left to use what appears to be English but is in fact Lynglish. Words are a kind of wizardry for human beings. Even when you know the truth about the Labour Party’s hatred of working-class Whites, a name like “Labour” still casts a linguistic spell on you. It certainly cast a spell on the millions of working-class Whites who continued to vote Labour many decades after the party had not merely abandoned them but become actively and eagerly hostile to their interests.
Hermer the Hater
But suppose that there was a rule that the names of political parties had to accurately reflect their true principles and the real interests they seek to serve. Then the Labour Party would have had to change its name to, say, the Lawyer Party.[i] And those working-class Whites wouldn’t have been fooled any more and would have stopped voting for the party. That’s all it would have taken: a simple change of name. Nothing else would have changed, but the party would have been sailing under its true colors at last. It wouldn’t have been pretending to champion the White working-class, but instead openly proclaiming itself to be a party run by devious, dishonest lawyers like Tony Blair, Keir Starmer and Richard Hermer, all of whom hate the White working-class and seek to harm it in every way they can. And who is Richard Hermer? Well, under the name Lord Hermer, he’s the little-known Jewish Attorney-General in Britain. I’ve looked at his anti-White activism in the articles “Kritarchs on Krusade” and “Hermer’s Harmers.” He’s a dedicated champion of what he calls “the rule of law.” But when he uses that phrase, he’s speaking Lynglish, not English.
Lying leftist lawyer Richard Hermer, a fluent speaker of Lynglish
In standard English, “the rule of law” means something like “the firm application of an objective system of laws applied impartially to all those under its jurisdiction.” And the phrase carries the implication — the verbal spell — that law is a kind of independent entity, floating free of politics, culture and human imperfection. But the standard meaning isn’t what leftists like Hermer have in mind when they use the phrase. If you translate “the rule of law” from Lynglish into English, you get “the rule of leftists.” But an additional and enlightening translation would be “the rule of words.” Even when you know the truth about leftists like Hermer, “the rule of law” still carries that verbal spell, still fools you in some way into thinking the law is somehow objective and impartial. But “the rule of words” breaks that spell. It explicitly reminds you that laws are composed of words and that words have to be interpreted by human beings. Lord Hermer speaks Lynglish, not English, so when he says “the rule of law” he means that laws can be arbitrarily applied or abandoned at the will and whim of leftists.
The Rule of Rape-Gangs
And it’s very easy to prove that leftists like Hermer don’t believe in the genuine rule of law. As I pointed out in “Kritarchs on Krusade,” he used the phrase “the rule of law” nearly seventy times in possibly “the most important speech of the entire Starmer government.” But has he ever made a speech condemning the flood of illegal immigrants across the English Channel? Day after day, the law — the wonderful, worship-worthy law — is being brazenly broken by hundreds of young non-White men from countries and cultures where there is no rule of law, where official corruption and crimes like rape and femicide are routine. The non-White immivaders break the law to get here and carry on breaking the law after the British state houses, clothes, feeds and medicates them at the expense of White tax-payers. But does Lord Hermer demand stern and implacable action to restore and maintain the rule of law and end the illegal immivasion? Of course not. He supports the mud-flood and, like the rest of the Labour elite, is complicit in the destruction of the rule of migration law.
His support for the mud-flood by no means exhausts his rejection of the genuine rule of law. Has Lord Hermer ever made a speech condemning the utter abandonment of law in rape-gang redoubts like Rotherham and Rochdale? Again, of course not. Decade after decade, police and politicians have refused to apply the law against non-White men preying on White working-class girls throughout Britain. Worse still, they have actively assisted the criminals: police have arrested fathers for trying to rescue their daughters from non-White rapists and Labour councils have effectively run so-called “children’s homes” as child-brothels where girls are warehoused for the benefit of non-White rapists and pimps. The full extent of these horrors is still to emerge, but one central fact is already certain: that for decades leftists have suspended “the rule of law” throughout Britain in favor of their non-White pets and against the White working-class. Lord Hermer has collaborated with that suspension of “the rule of law,” not condemned it.
Refusing to protect real women
Hermer has gone even further since April 2025. Or rather: he’s gone nowhere again. He has stayed silent and done nothing as “the rule of law” has again been suspended in favor of another group of leftist pets. In April 2025, the British Supreme Court made the clear ruling that women are defined in equality law by biology, not by bullshit. In other words, the Supreme Court stated that real women are entitled in law to private spaces that so-called transwomen cannot enter. If “the rule of law” applied in Britain, the Supreme Court’s judgment would have been swiftly obeyed and genuine women would have been protected from the perverted male narcissists known as transwomen. But the judgment hasn’t been obeyed, because Bridget Phillipson, the Labour “minister for women and equalities” has refused to sign off “guidance” that explicitly asked her to “act at speed” in ordering the judgment to be obeyed. This is a gross and glaring suspension of “the rule of law” by a prominent minister in Hermer’s own government. And Hermer has said and done absolutely nothing.
Lying leftist Bridget Phillipson, another fluent speaker of Lynglish (image from The London Standard)
It’s clear that, like everyone else in the Labour elite, Hermer does not believe in the genuine rule of law. Instead, he believes in the rule of leftists. And when Bridget Phillipson calls herself the “minister for women and equalities,” she’s using Lynglish, not English. She should really call herself the “minister against women and for inequalities.” For leftists like her, perverted male “transwomen” are superior to genuine ordinary women and therefore entitled to invade female territory. The same applies to Whites and non-Whites. Leftists claim to believe in “racial equality,” which looks like a phrase in standard English. It isn’t: it’s a phrase in Lynglish and has to be translated into standard English as “privilege for non-Whites, punishment for Whites.” For leftists, non-Whites are superior to ordinary Whites and therefore entitled to invade White territory, prey on Whites and parasitize Whites as they please. That’s why the votes of ordinary Whites against non-White immigration have no effect. Leftists say they believe in “democracy,” which looks like a word of standard English meaning “rule by the people.” But leftists are using Lynglish, where the word “democracy” means something quite different. Here’s a leftist in the Guardian explaining what “democracy” means in Lynglish:
Nesrine Malik’s article on racism leads to the uncomfortable idea that democracy is OK as long as the good people can fiddle it to keep the bad ones out of power. Once it becomes genuinely democratic, you might find that the intelligent and virtuous are outnumbered on three fronts
— by the stupid and virtuous, the intelligent and evil, and the stupid and evil. (“We abhor racism in Britain, but refuse to recognise where it comes from,” Guardian Letters Page, 19th December 2025)
To Guardianistas and other leftists, “democracy” is only “OK” when it isn’t democracy, that is, when the “intelligent and virtuous” are able to subvert, cancel or reverse the popular will. But what exactly did that leftist mean by “intelligent and virtuous”? Well, it’s obviously intelligent to flood advanced White nations with non-White folk from the most primitive, corrupt and low-achieving regions on Earth. And it’s obviously virtuous to allow non-White Muslims to rape, prostitute and torture girls from the White working-class. How do we know all this? Because that’s what leftists have done and leftists are, by definition, “intelligent and virtuous.”
Proles Protesting Paddington
If you object to the mud-flood and the rape-gangs, you are certainly evil and probably stupid too. It’s evil to criticize any aspect of non-White behavior or culture — that is one of the central dogmas of leftism. You can see the dogma celebrated in a cartoon about “migration and the hard right” at the Guardian, Britain’s newspaper of choice for the intelligent and virtuous. To understand the cartoon, you have to know that it’s referring to a musical about the fictional children’s character Paddington, a small bear who migrated to Britain from Peru in the 1950s. Paddington is harmless, loves marmalade sandwiches, and once starred in a video having tea with Queen Elizabeth II. The air-headed Labour MP Stella Creasy invoked him in arguing for open borders and the air-headed cartoonist Ben Jennings has followed her lead:
Cartoonist Ben Jennings feeds the narcissism of intelligent and virtuous leftists at the Guardian
Note how the intelligent and virtuous leftist woman on the right is widening her eyes in stunned disbelief at the stupidity of the racist male prole on the left, who is protesting against a harmless bear who poses absolutely no threat to children. Another racist male prole is shown further left, his ugly face distorted with xenophobia and malice. The two proles and their fellow protestors are wrapped in or waving English or British flags, emphasizing the stupidity and evil of their protest against little Paddington. And how do I react, looking at that cartoon? I know how the leftist woman feels. Looking at it, I feel stunned disbelief too. The cartoon is so stupid and so dishonest that even Guardianistas must have regarded it as an insult to their intelligence, mustn’t they? In fact, no. Not in the slightest. Leftist cartoonists and journalists can insult the intelligence of their leftist audience as much as they like, just so long as they remember to pander to the insatiable narcissism of that audience at the same time.
And that’s what the cartoon does: it simultaneously insults the intelligence of its audience and panders to the narcissism of its audience. “You are intelligent and virtuous because you welcome all migrants of color,” the cartoon tells leftists. “You are infinitely superior to these evil racist proles, who are so stupid that they can’t grasp a simple syllogism: ‘Little Paddington Bear is a migrant of color and harmless, therefore all migrants of color are harmless.’” And that is indeed the implicit syllogism of the cartoon. The syllogism is stupid, of course, just like the cartoon as a whole. The scenario there is not merely fictional but doubly fictional. Paddington Bear isn’t real and nor is the idea that anyone would protest against Paddington. In reality, the “proles” are protesting about real crimes committed by real migrants against real children. Here is merely one example:
A man has pleaded guilty to the rape of a 12-year-old girl in Warwickshire, in a case that prompted anti-asylum protests in Nuneaton. Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, of no fixed abode, changed his plea at Warwick crown court on Friday, admitting the single charge of rape of a child under 13 on 22 July [2025]. Mulakhil, an Afghan national, had previously denied abducting a child, three counts of rape and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13 at a hearing on 28 August.
Co-defendant Mohammad Kabir, 23, of no fixed abode, previously pleaded not guilty to attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl at the hearing in August. Mulakhil, 23, was assisted in the hearing with a Farsi interpreter and pleaded guilty to a single count of oral rape. Kabir was assisted with a Pashto interpreter. The hearing did not mention the men’s nationalities or immigration status. (“[Afghan] Man pleads guilty to rape of girl, 12, in case that sparked anti-asylum protests,” The Guardian, 21st November 2025)
The ugly reality that leftists ignore: non-White migrants commit sex-crimes at much higher rates (graph from Restore Britain and Centre for Migration Control)
How do intelligent and virtuous leftists react to the toxic truth about the frequent and vicious crimes committed by non-Whites against Whites? It’s simple. Given a choice between ugly reality and dishonest fantasy, no leftist hesitates a second. It’s dishonest fantasy every time. That’s why a cartoonist for the Guardian fantasized that proles were protesting against harmless little brown-furred Paddington rather than about real brown-skinned rapists. And even if Afghans and other non-Whites didn’t commit sexual and other crimes at much higher rates — which they do — intelligent and virtuous leftists refuse to face a simple fact about the presence of those non-Whites in Britain and other Western nations. As Connor Tomlinson has pointed out, every crime committed in the West by a non-White migrant is a crime that did not need to happen. A crime that shouldn’t have happened. And a crime that wouldn’t have happened if Western nations were genuine democracies.
So always remember: when leftists praise “democracy” or “equality” or “the rule of law,” they’re not speaking English but Lynglish. It’s a truthless tongue spoken by ruthless people who are interested only in power for themselves, privilege for their pets, and punishment for their enemies. And who are their enemies? Anyone who believes in truth rather than lies.
[i] If that rule existed, lobby-groups in Britain like Conservative or Labour Friends of Israel would have to be renamed Conservative or Labour Servants of Israel.